My Problem With Harry Potter (Or At Least The Last Book)

Harry's confrontation of Death is brave, but it turns him
into an uncomfortable Jesus analogue.

I felt like a rant. Written 1/9/12.

I've spoken about Harry Potter before, both covering the individual books and a retrospective of the films. I've been a fan since I've been able to read, and the wonderful world presented by JK Rowling is still one that I consider to be one of the best in fiction. When it comes to which medium I prefer, then I'd have to say... Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, by Eliezer Yudkowsky. Seriously, read it. In canon? Well, that's why I'm writing this article. Yesterday I watched the last two Harry Potter movies back-to-back for the first time, and was blown away by the amazing cinematography. But I also realised some of the problems endemic not only in the films' adaptation of the series, but also in the book series itself.
     My biggest beef with the final book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, came during the final battle, in which Harry realises that he contains part of Voldemort's soul and must therefore face death in order to save everyone else's lives. When he does so, he has a moment in a heavenly environment where he chats with Professor Dumbledore, and then he returns to like in the nick of time to face down the now vulnerable Voldy and save the day. Hurrah. Well, not so for me. This is an issue that I'm going to cover when I get to the end of Ashes To Ashes, and it really surrounds the way religious themes are used in fiction. Now, as much as I dislike them, I am not averse to religious themes in general. What I am averse to is the use of them when said themes aren't present in the work beforehand. LOST pissed me off because it had always presented scientific answers to supernatural phenomena, and then had a freakin' afterlife. Ashes To Ashes, which had always been a secular comadream, suddenly became an issue of Angels and Demons. And here, in a work known for being burnt by Fundamentalists for its use of Witchcraft, our hero is not just presented as a messanic archetype, but also does what Jesus does in the Gospels. Why's that such a problem? It's simple, really. The character of Harry is too good for that. This is one of only a few series where I'm invested in the characters over the world and themes surrounding them, and so it felt terrible when a character as well-rounded and well-written as Harry was fobbed off as a Christian archetype.

Voldemort turned into a cardboard cutout.

     And that leads me to another problem with the Harry Potter world - it glorifies Death. I've never understood the practice in fiction of encouraging death and destruction as if it's an honourable thing to have happen to you. This runs through the books rather well; I sympathised with Voldemort rather a lot as a man so afraid of Death that he did evil things in order to live forever, to the point where he lost his moral compass and decided to take power with it. In the films and in the final book, all of that humanisation is thrown away. In his fevered afterlife dream, Harry sees Voldemort as a skeletal child, forever alone and beyond redemption or help. He becomes a cackling madman, and all of the motivation that we saw driving him in Book Six's flashbacks seemed to evaporate. Further, the scene immediately before Harry's sacrifice sees him suing an artifact known as the Ressurection Stone to speak with the "ghosts" of his dead parents and their friends. This short scene was a lot more frightening for me than anything Voldemort did; the twinkle in Gary Oldman's eyes as Sirius called dying "quicker than falling asleep." That may be so in a world with an afterlife, but it's a stupid lesson to be sprouting for the real world, where the end of consciousness is the end of you.
     It's maybe a bit more personal, but that's my problem with Harry Potter and what I love about Yudowsky's Methods of Rationality. The end of the canon series tries for something clever with the way it treats the core dynamic between hero and villain, and in the process it ignores all of the character development that those two had had over the previous six books/films. Harry Potter is not Jesus Christ, and the many people who die across the series cannot come back in the way that he did. I just wish the series would remember that too.

Thanks.

Opinion: The Harry Potter Film Series

As I've pointed out, I really love Harry Potter. The series is adaptive and challenging, taking a new generation of kids and exposing them to some brilliant writing. The series’ planning and forethought is often mindboggling to behold. However, like many children I didn’t start out reading the books – I grew up on the first three films in the series, directed by Christopher Columbus and Alfonso Cuaron respectively. I loved these films direction and their spellbinding worlds, as well as how the characters were portrayed by the ambitiously cast main actors. I started reading the books before the fourth film was released, and I was immediately hooked into this richer world. It’s no coincidence that I didn’t like the films afterwards as much, maybe because I now noticed the problems of translating the series from stage to screen.

     The first two films, directed by Christopher Columbus, had an eerie fantasy feel that reflected the relative innocence of the early books. The books here were only around 200 pages long, meaning that not a lot had to be cut out or changed to fit the new medium. Regardless, a lot of things were, but nothing that affected the story in major ways. Of the first three films, I prefer the second – it was the last on-screen performance of the late Richard Harris, whose performance as the earlier, more mystical Dumbledore fit that version perfectly. I also loved the chilling climax, where the threat felt very real.

     The third film, directed by Alfonso Cuaron took a more mature feel as the actors were beginning to out grow the ages of their characters. The film took a lot more liberties with the source material, especially in the omission of several key points affecting the series’ mythos that make certain scenes in later films more nonsensical. It also saw the arrival of Gary Oldman as Sirius Black, a character whose skilful introduction is carried over from the book. Most of all, I enjoy this particular film’s dealings with the book’s time-travel aspect, which really captured my imagination as a child. Michael Gambon’s new Dumbledore, while strange at this early stage, is better later on when Dumbledore takes on a darker persona.

    The fourth film was somewhat of a no-brainer for me, as it didn’t abuse the source material in any meaningful ways and actually introduced us to the film series’ badass version of Lord Voldemort. It was a more-or-less perfect translation from script-to-screen, helped no doubt by the book’s plot, which is pretty much a filler arc until the climax. The director, Mike Newell, was drafted in at the last minute and thus has no obvious grandiose takes on the series.

     The last four films were directed by David Yates, whose style took on a more adult and epic feel. After the fourth film, I became a lot more disconnected with the franchise. The seventh and final book came out just after the fifth film, meaning that all of the previous plot-significance that the previous films had omitted would hopefully be left in. The fifth film took a hell-of-a-lot of liberties – several major character arcs were omitted, making previous characters useless – an example here being Rita Skeeter, whose arc here in posting negative propaganda about Harry, as well as being revealed to Hermione as an unregistered Animagus, were left out. We never saw the character again, making her inclusion in Film Four a rather wasted opportunity.  

     The only Harry Potter film which has really disappointed me is the adaptation of Book Six, whose focus moved away from the mythos and more into an irritating adolescent drama filled with kissing, dating and other such trifles. I understand the desires of screaming fangirls and Shippers in the Harry Potter fanbase, but the film could have been so much better had it focussed more on the mythology set out in the book – one that examined not only our villain’s main motivations, but also shone some light onto Dumbledore. I was, most of all, worried for the adaptation of the final book – this film had been scripted with the final book in mind, and yet it leaves out so much that the final tale needs.

     A lot of fans were irritated when they learnt that the final adaptation, being around 5 hours long, would have to be separated into to two different films. I was intrigued and I had my hopes up – and I wasn’t disappointed, with a much more mature and considered directing style that perfectly captured the feel of the book. In places, the film was actually better – especially in the climactic battle, where the film did things that literature cannot, making it much more epic and exciting to witness. I also loved the final film’s treatment of Snape, who is the series’ true protagonist – the section where his loyalties were revealed was much more moving and poignant than I ever could have imagined.

     The all-star cast of the series help to cement its pedigree – among others, Alan Rickman’s Snape is a perfect translation and adds a new dimension to the character; Robbie Coltrane’s Hagrid also fits his character very well. The three main leads, despite being complete unknowns, show a genuine growth in both their characters and their acting ability.

     The series’ fourteen year legacy ended this July with the release of the final film, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. But despite the films’ (and the books’) problems, Harry Potter will go down in history as the first time that such an ambitious project was undertaken – the first time that Hollywood even tried to adapt a series like this to the big screen. Its effects are everywhere – the recent Avengers Series, for example, wouldn’t have been possible without the proof and long-lasting appeal that the Harry Potter series brought with it. The series, now on its deathbed, is already working its way into the history books.

Thanks.

Review: Harry Potter (7/7): Deathly Hallows

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, By J.K.Rowling (2007)

Well, we waited a good eight years, but we got there. Harry Potter's final journey takes him far beyond the confines of Hogwarts and out into the rich wizarding world, to places only hinted at in previous books. Spoilers follow.

So before he popped his clogs, Dumbledore told Harry about Voldemort's "horcruxes," items imbued with a part of Voldy's soul. That's why he's got the old immortality thing going on, and so Harry must destroy them all, like he destroyed the diary horcrux that held a young Voldy.

Assisted in true bunker fashion are his two friends, Ron and Hermionie (they have a long-suspected romantic subplot; it's irrelevant for now), mainly because at the end of the last book Hogwarts became under the control of Voldy's forces.

Now this book is a triumph. A majesty. The ultimate pay-off to the series; I only found one flaw with it, despite it being a big flaw (see below). It's language is noticeably more mature than the first book, and so are the characters and their responses to the world arond them.

Oh, and Harry is killed. Not at the end though. No, he goes to LIMBO and comes back again, because a part of Voldy's soul ended up in Harry. PARDON? Maybe I had this reaction because I'm an atheist, maybe I had it becausein Limbo there is an image of Voldemort's soul as a blackened corpse, totally dispelling all of the vital, "Mislead Human" aspect of his character. Good going, JK. I felt no sympathy for Harry by the end of the book. I don't know why, but his arrogance seen in previous books seemed to amplify when he conquered death twice. 

Otherwise, this is a brilliant book. No plot holes, no loose ends. Just the climax to a brilliant series of fiction.
I must say though. The film will be terrible.

Thanks. 

Review: Harry Potter (6/7): Half-Blood Prince

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, By J.K.Rowling (2005)

The last two books form their own finale, but in my opinion HPHBP is the better of the two. Strong, powerful, and although muddled by unecessary romantic subplots, it provides some of the best moments in the series.

Of course I am perhaps a little biased. This was the first book that I read soon after release, and on holiday at that. It's certainly an interesting book, and the series turns into an aging wine with all of its features blooming and wrinkling.

Alright, the basic plot is as follows: Everyone's taken their heads from their arses and saw that there's some funky shit going on in the world. Meanwhile, Voldy acts like a brooding serial killer and starts attacking non-magical people. Dumbeldore is understandably pissed and so starts training up Harry because he's the Chosen One etc. and in the end is killed by an Antihero.

Oops Spoilers! To be honest, I feel incapable of describing the next book without using spoilers, so I might as well start here.

Elsewhere in this story there are around four romantic subplots, each more awkward and unnecessary than the last. Maybe it's a way of identifying that they're getting older, but I just don't see it. She has done a good job representing the irrationality and short standing nature of teenage relationships, but this doesn't complement the overall sense of tension that results from the return and exploits of Voldemort.

Anyway. A good book, if spoiled by a few trivial things, and we get, erm, serious next tommorrow with the finale.

Review: Harry Potter (5/7): Order of the Phoenix

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, By J.K.Rowiling (2003)

The longest book in the series at a whopping 800 pages, I don't feel that Order of the Phoenix deserves its length, which seems to drag on and on. The plot basically follows the (spoiler warning) full return of Lord Voldemort at the end of the last book. Basically Harry, his close friends and the powerful headmaster (Dumbeldore; an extremely important character that I feel ashamed for not having mentioned) are the only ones who believe that he is back. Cue torturous reign of horror on the edge of society, bubbling over into the fore-ground just when it's too late to do anything.

The titular Order is a group of "goodies" that are fighting against Voldy, and play a major part in the beginning of the book where Harry faces trial for using magic to stop a dementor that attacked his cousin and he while walking about before meeting a squib. And if that made sense to you, I'm so, so sorry.

Ok, I'll admit that there are a lot of aspects of the plot that I don't mention here. It gets rid of the one-sided potential of the earlier books while building a lot of tension for the serious danger that one can feel coming from the threat of Voldy's armies. So far the books have painted Harry as Jesus and Voldemort as Satan (more of these religious connotations on Sunday), and this is the first book that actually gets to the point where she is obliged to say, "Well everyone's human in the end heh heh".

Again, the prose is beautiful and detailed in a way that doesn't deter from the story. One can feel empathy for the characters, and that is perhaps the most important aspect. One feels frustration at the world's misbelief of Voldemort, and that's just brilliant.

I notice that in the reviews of book 2 through 4 I say that the next book is serious. Just to clarify; we get serious next week! :L

Thanks.

Review: Harry Potter (4/7): Goblet of Fire

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, By J.K.Rowling (2000)

Things get series in this fourth installment, a transitionary novel of sorts from the lgihthearted nature of the first three novels to the darkness of the last three. Its plot is mainly independant; a legendary tournament between the three great wizarding schools that somehow Harry is elected for, because he's somehow extra-speshuw and then there's this whole revelation and a really important plot point that I don't feel at liberty to mention.

Rowling tormented her fans by saying that a character would die, and she was right, although it was luckily a character we hadn't heard of before this book (he was played by Twilight's Edward Pattinson in the film version, and was accordingly wooden). It also features some important last-three-book features as well as pay-offs for some of the features introduced in earlier books.

Erm... not a lot to say, really. As I remember, the story and writing quality was as excellent as one comes to expect from Rowling. Especially the climax sequence, which had a great sense of tension to it. I've always viewed this book as the story between two trilogies, and as that device (and an independant tale) it works very well.

Tommorrow, we get serious with Order of the Phoenix.

Thanks.

Review: Harry Potter (3/7): Prisoner of Azkaban

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, By J.K.Rowling (1999)

Here we take a step back from some of the bigger mythology and focus more on character, something Rowling does well. What results is perhaps one of the more intelligent books in the series, if not the most excitable.

The only book in the series that doesn't feature Lord Voldemort, PoA instead makes a villan of Harry's godfather, who supposedly betrayed his parents to Voldemort thirteen years previously. When it is revealed that this dangerous criminal has escaped, Harry is recognisably angry about it. And so follows a tale of misdirection and, strangely, time travel, in which our characters are much further explored as people.

When I began reading Potter the third film had just been released, and so my memories of it are sketchy. The book has less action or grand majesting rambling; just a lot of extra, accumulating detail and character drama. Like previous books, elements important later on are introduced here, and will continue to be introduced even in the final book.

This is the end of the introductory period of books; the end of the innocence of Harry and his friends. The next book is transitionary, into a more mature story, and this is one last savoury pocket of the innocent adventures that came beforehand.

What struck me is that there is no climax. The story doesn't seem to build; it just rolls on and the period that one may call a climax is too far from the end of the book. That's my only gripe with it, however.

Thanks.

Review: Harry Potter (2/7): The Chamber of Secrets

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, By J.K.Rowling (1998)

The first book I read without pictures; a story that delves further into the mythology of the series without coming over any darker than previous. It's as if the series is still keeping its cards close to its chest, slowly placing low cards that will add to more later.

I won't go into any more detail about Rowling's brilliantly immersive style; other than that there is as before a marked increase in maturity in the characters as the story progresses. She also trickles through small elements of story that seem only useful for diversity here but will play deep parts in further stories, like racial purity and other little ideas.

Of course, this marks the first time we see a form of Lord Voldemort, the evil wizard that killed Harry's parents (Well, he was a face on the back of a proffessor's head in the last book), in the form of his teenage self. We learn that for some reason Harry has taken on some of Voldy's powers, which seems interesting but not yet important to the plot.

Overall, this book is a necessary step between the introductory first book and the more serious third. It introduces some important mythology and most of all it gives neccessary advancement in the maturity of the characters.

Thanks.

Review: Harry Potter (1/7): The Philosopher's Stone

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, by J.K.Rowling (1997)

If you don't know the basic story of Harry Potter, you've obviously been banged up in some Cuban jail somewhere, or had your head encased in concrete, or most likely both. But for those few who have suffered this unfortunate treatment, the basic idea is that the orphaned Harry Potter discovers on his eleventh birthday that his parents were in fact wizards, and tht he is famous for being the Chosen One who survived being almost-killed by a big evil wizarding type.

It reeks of familiarity and cliche, but for some reason it's strangely endearing. Maybe it's the realism and detail in which Harry's thoughts are covered; maybe it's the child audience. Whatever it is, it means that when one first encounters the series, one is hooked. I'm not just talking about some small compulsion, I'm talking about this book's brilliant ability to immerse the reader in it's world of magic and wonder.

Harry's early innocence is a good place to start the tale; naivity and youth work well together, and in the following books we watch as Harry's detailed personality matures and wrinkles. The fluency and detail of this book and of the whole series are perhaps I think what makes it so damn readable, and the immersive qualities of those traits make a good book.

While still being a good book, it seamlessly introduces a wildly varied backstory and a set of consistent rules that this magical world follows. It has identifiable drama, moments that will make you laugh and despair, moments that, due to their sheer beautiful simplicity, will have a smile erupting onto your face.

The atmosphere of the book is an interesting parallel to Harry's maturity, as it's light and idealistic nature dilutes as the book and the series goes on. You can physically feel that the book's style is different at the end than it was at the beginning, reflecting the change in the protagonist.

A book that should be read by all children who aspire to read properly, write fluently and expand their imaginations beyond the material world. Simply brilliant.

Thanks.